Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > World History Forum > American History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

American History American History Forum - United States, Canada, Mexico, Central and South America


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old November 8th, 2012, 09:07 AM   #91
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 19,934

Quote:
Originally Posted by zincwarrior View Post
Nonsense. It was a fort in our territory. Mexico attacked it and then sent an army to siege it, again in our territory. The resulting major battle was again in our territory.
And repeating this nicely apologetic fairy tale ad nauseam is going to transform it into relevant hard evidence, right?
sylla1 is offline  
Remove Ads
Old November 8th, 2012, 09:25 AM   #92
Historian
 
Joined: Jun 2012
From: Texas
Posts: 2,310

Quote:
Originally Posted by sylla1 View Post
And repeating this nicely apologetic fairy tale ad nauseam is going to transform it into relevant hard evidence, right?
Not getting what your issue is, other than an excuse to hurl veiled insults.

1. Texas gained its independence via the Treaties of Velasco.
Treaties_of_Velasco Treaties_of_Velasco

Treaty defined the Texas's southern border- the Rio Grande.
Quote:
The Mexican troops will evacuate the territory of Texas
passing to the other side of the Rio Grande del Norte
Actual treaty as reference:
https://www.tsl.state.tx.us/treasure...-public-1.html

2. United States annexes the sovereign nation of Texas by treaty.

3. Mexico disputed the region dispite the treaty (but then again disputed Texas was actually sovereign prior to the annexation to begin with). The US moved troops into this area-which was US territory by treaty. Note it was north of the Rio Grande.

4. Mexican troops then attacked the fort (siege of Fort Texas).

5. Siege quickly relieved by General Taylor's army resulting in the battle of Palo Alto - again in US territory in the state of Texas (north of the Rio Grande). The battlefield is a US park (hot as heck though)
The Battle of Palo Alto - Palo Alto Battlefield National Historical Park
zincwarrior is offline  
Old November 8th, 2012, 09:45 AM   #93

tjadams's Avatar
Epicurean
 
Joined: Mar 2009
From: Texas
Posts: 25,369
Blog Entries: 6

Quote:
Originally Posted by sylla1 View Post
And repeating this nicely apologetic fairy tale ad nauseam is going to transform it into relevant hard evidence, right?
This thread is missing a left back wheel & is stuck.
You see why I give up with some threads as some members go into
Historical hibernation when confronted with a solid, valid question, only
to be awakened when their in-born instincts wake them up and act as
if the passed question never existed. I get better reasoning from my 8th graders.
I've given up long ago trying to teach cats to bark.
tjadams is offline  
Old November 8th, 2012, 10:00 AM   #94
Historian
 
Joined: Jun 2012
From: Texas
Posts: 2,310

Quote:
Originally Posted by tjadams View Post
This thread is missing a left back wheel & is stuck.
You see why I give up with some threads as some members go into
Historical hibernation when confronted with a solid, valid question, only
to be awakened when their in-born instincts wake them up and act as
if the passed question never existed. I get better reasoning from my 8th graders.
I've given up long ago trying to teach cats to bark.
er what?
zincwarrior is offline  
Old November 8th, 2012, 10:34 AM   #95

Baltis's Avatar
Goat Whisperer
 
Joined: Dec 2011
From: Texas
Posts: 3,058
Blog Entries: 30

Quote:
Originally Posted by zincwarrior View Post
Not getting what your issue is, other than an excuse to hurl veiled insults.

1. Texas gained its independence via the Treaties of Velasco.
Treaties of Velasco - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Treaty defined the Texas's southern border- the Rio Grande.


Actual treaty as reference:
https://www.tsl.state.tx.us/treasure...-public-1.html

2. United States annexes the sovereign nation of Texas by treaty.

3. Mexico disputed the region dispite the treaty (but then again disputed Texas was actually sovereign prior to the annexation to begin with). The US moved troops into this area-which was US territory by treaty. Note it was north of the Rio Grande.

4. Mexican troops then attacked the fort (siege of Fort Texas).

5. Siege quickly relieved by General Taylor's army resulting in the battle of Palo Alto - again in US territory in the state of Texas (north of the Rio Grande). The battlefield is a US park (hot as heck though)
The Battle of Palo Alto - Palo Alto Battlefield National Historical Park
The treaties of Velasco are not treaties between nations. More like a document of a general surrendering in the field and giving his parole.
Baltis is offline  
Old November 8th, 2012, 10:57 AM   #96
Historian
 
Joined: Jun 2012
From: Texas
Posts: 2,310

Quote:
Originally Posted by Baltis View Post
The treaties of Velasco are not treaties between nations. More like a document of a general surrendering in the field and giving his parole.
Its how nations become nations. Under that argument no nation that secured its independence could ever secure a treaty.

Mexico was ruled by a dictator - Santa Anna.
Santa Anna lost the battle of San Jacinto (and attempted to flee in a private's uniform )
Santa Anna agreed to the terms of the treaty.

Again Texas gained its independence in battle. That independence and territory was agreed to by the then government of Mexico. Texas was then annexed. Mexican troops attacked US troops on US soil and then invaded to lay siege, withdrawing only after losing a major battle.
The war would not have started had Mexico not attacked US forces on US forces and then engaged them in open battle.
zincwarrior is offline  
Old November 8th, 2012, 11:12 AM   #97

Baltis's Avatar
Goat Whisperer
 
Joined: Dec 2011
From: Texas
Posts: 3,058
Blog Entries: 30

The US did not become a nation when Cornwallis surrendered at Yorktown. It was the Treaty of 1783 that ended the war and recognized Independence.

I don't remember Santa Anna being a dictator in the sense of not having a Constitution to answer to and a Parliament of some sort.
Baltis is offline  
Old November 8th, 2012, 11:14 AM   #98
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 19,934

Quote:
Originally Posted by zincwarrior View Post
Its how nations become nations. Under that argument no nation that secured its independence could ever secure a treaty.

Mexico was ruled by a dictator - Santa Anna.
Santa Anna lost the battle of San Jacinto (and attempted to flee in a private's uniform )
Santa Anna agreed to the terms of the treaty.

Again Texas gained its independence in battle. That independence and territory was agreed to by the then government of Mexico. Texas was then annexed. Mexican troops attacked US troops on US soil and then invaded to lay siege, withdrawing only after losing a major battle.
The war would not have started had Mexico not attacked US forces on US forces and then engaged them in open battle.
Quote:
Originally Posted by zincwarrior View Post
1) He abrogated the Constitution, hence why Texas and several other states rebelled.
2) What parliament are you referring to? He was dictator - head of the government of Mexico.

Like it or not he was the government of Mexico and signed a lawful treaty after losing the battle.
Amazing as it may sound for some people, Santa Anna was no president at the moment, not even before being captured, as anyone could easily verify.

The Mexican president was then Jose Justo Corro.

And of course, previous to the defeat of 1848 Mexico never renounced to the property of any territories annexed by any nation any more than the Czech would have renounced to the Sudetenland before Munich.

At the risk of overstating the obvious, this war couldn't have been any more determined in advance, as rightly pointed out by Mr. US Grant.

Analogous to any expansionist war of the Classical Athens, the Roman Republic or any colonial power of the time, we may add.

Not that acknowledging the obvious intentionality of any such aforementioned wars would have been particularly shameful or disturbing for most of those conquerors, BTW.

Not that hard evidence would be particularly relevant for fairy tales, I'm afraid.

Last edited by sylla1; November 8th, 2012 at 11:22 AM.
sylla1 is offline  
Old November 8th, 2012, 11:17 AM   #99
Historian
 
Joined: Jun 2012
From: Texas
Posts: 2,310

Quote:
Originally Posted by Baltis View Post
The US did not become a nation when Cornwallis surrendered at Yorktown. It was the Treaty of 1783 that ended the war and recognized Independence.

I don't remember Santa Anna being a dictator in the sense of not having a Constitution to answer to and a Parliament of some sort.
1) He abrogated the Constitution, hence why Texas and several other states rebelled.
2) What parliament are you referring to? He was dictator - head of the government of Mexico.

Like it or not he was the government of Mexico and signed a lawful treaty after losing the battle.
zincwarrior is offline  
Old November 8th, 2012, 11:36 AM   #100

Baltis's Avatar
Goat Whisperer
 
Joined: Dec 2011
From: Texas
Posts: 3,058
Blog Entries: 30

So, if a terrorist (ala Jack Bauer) captures the President and forces him to sign a document giving Texas back to Mexico, I suppose we should respect that. Cause its how nations are born?

What hogwash. Texas got its independence because Mexico wasn't motivated or united enough to fight the Texians any further. Same reason the US got its independence from Britain. Unless of course your argument would be that Sam Houston's army was truly sufficient to take on a prepared and consolidated Mexican army instead of getting lucky enough on a surprise attack to capture Santa Anna.

I get the feeling you aren't so much interested in exploring history and its various perspectives. More like trying to have the final word on a debate that has been going on for a couple of centuries. I wish you well in that and all your endeavors. But I will be content to enjoy learning about both sides of the debate and allowing it to continue on into the next couple of centuries.
Baltis is offline  
Reply

  Historum > World History Forum > American History

Tags
mexicanamerican, war


Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
What was the chance of Mexico winning the Mexican-American war? DeliciousTomatoesYay American History 36 July 1st, 2012 01:35 PM
Irish soldiers and American deserters in Mexico, 1846-1848 Salah American History 6 April 24th, 2012 07:01 AM
Mexican-American War dimmit American History 23 February 28th, 2012 05:18 PM
The Mexican Army of Santa Anna and the Mexican War Salah American History 18 September 8th, 2011 06:45 AM
Mexican-American War: Polk or Tyler tjadams American History 52 January 24th, 2011 05:11 PM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.